User talk:Flying-sheep
Welcome Hi, welcome to Scribblenauts Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Glitches page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Hawkian (Talk) 15:00, September 23, 2009 Please do not subvert policy! Hey flying-sheep- your method for taking screenshots is fine if you want to do it on pages you make, but added unnecessary divs to a page is not good policy and having the actual image be at 2x size is the best way to maintain quality and still be able to create thumbnails of it for other uses. Please do not revert my edits. Thanks! --Hawkian 21:14, September 23, 2009 (UTC) A few notes # What method are you using to take your pictures with a transparent background? # Please take a look at this: Original: Resized externally: Resized through the wiki: The blurring on the last image is obvious, and the more detail and larger the original image is, the more noticeable this will be. Plus, this method requires users to know to insert the width param and also to double the width of the original image. Some of our contributors are not as technically savvy as us, and I know that at least one of them is taking screenshots for the first time ever in helping this wiki out. Simply inserting the image as it appears in-game, actually doubled in size to preserve quality, seems much simpler and has better results. If we are deciding that the blue isn't a good color, I hadn't been informed, but as such it will already acquire the editing of over a hundred images that were created before your policy. Please stick to this for the moment, I will keep your method preserved to discuss. --Hawkian 21:31, September 23, 2009 (UTC) :“The blurring on the last image is obvious” :what? :http://red-sheep.de/images/screenies/wut.png :ok, if you would have looked at the edit you have undone, there would have been a simple instruction how to do it, and you see in my picture, that i have no idea what you are talking about regarding the quality. :– Flying-sheep 21:40, September 23, 2009 (UTC) :PS: hmm, what about a combination: i write in peace the tutorial advocating and teaching my method as an alternative to the old one, post it here, and you give your ok. and you are really a webdesigner and use paint & IE? :and we keep the blue background in the template ::* -Daharkhmeiji 21:49, September 23, 2009 (UTC) :::Sorry, are you saying that you don't see the difference between the quality between the second and third images above? Also, I will indeed leave in-place your edit to Template:Object as it looks pretty good with existing images. However, though your Earth Magic image looks great as an in-line link image, we have been trying to have a little bit of a border above the image as well in the info-box ones, and yours aligns right with the top edge- compare to cannonball. It's not a big deal, but something you might want to do for future images- you can always take a second shot (perfectly cropped, with or without shadows, whatever you prefer) for use with in-link links. And yes, I am "really" a web designer and graphic artist. I don't know where exactly you got the idea that I have ever touched IE since version 5, but yes- I use paint for 4-second image edits such as a simple 2x resize that it would be pretty ludicrous for me to boot up CS3 or GIMP for. On the discussion page, I have linked to the discussion page which archives your method and stipulated that it is fine for anyone who wants to to use (though again, you don't seem to get that magnifying an image stretches its existing pixels, resulting in a doubling of the size of each one- meaning that there are the same number over a larger space. Doubling the image using an external program is actually doubling the number of pixels, so that the image appears as it would if the DS were able to render at twice its resolution. Sorry about the edit war on the page, and thanks. --Hawkian 21:53, September 23, 2009 (UTC) ::::Let me guess… ::::yeah: microsoft implementet yet another “feature” breaking everything in ie8 ::::use this to check out the previous version (IE7) ::::and swich to firefox, safari, chrome, konqueror, … ::::– Flying-sheep 21:55, September 23, 2009 (UTC) ::::PS: for the cannonball: you are right, i will crop them in standard sizes. ::::the earth magic is 22×23 pixels, while i should use 24×24 px. :::::Where are you getting this nonsense about IE? Again, I haven't touched it since version 5 except to test compatibility for my clients. I use Chrome. And the image renders exactly the same in Firefox 3, blurring and all. You basically just admitted that your method hinges on the capabilities of a user's browser- as a webdesigner I'm sure you know this is always less than ideal. Again, sorry about this confusion, and thanks again for your edits.--Hawkian 22:03, September 23, 2009 (UTC) ::::::the link i posted above allows you to render webpages in different browser engines. ie8 created the blurry one, ie7 the crisp. i have on this pc firefox and konqueror and therefore can see pages with webkit (chrome, safari), khtml (konqueror) and gecko (firefox) all engines created the crisp look. strange why you see them different from me. – Flying-sheep 22:13, September 23, 2009 (UTC) ::::::PS: tip @ hawkian: use imagemagick for simple tasks, it’s even faster *Again, I had previously never once viewed this page in IE of any variety. Looking at the page renderer you linked, I see the difference in rendering styles of the two IE versions. But frankly I am surprised that IE7 natively rendered it the "sharper" way. You may have derogatorily referred to this as a "feature," but I count on it when designing a web page and know that the best way to preserve image quality across browsers is to insert an image at full-size and render natively, rather than rely on the browser's ability to interpret an on-the-fly magnification. If I code a page to display a 50 px image at 500px, I don't want it to actually resize the image to 10x larger and display the new image- I want it to stretch the 50px I gave it to occupy 500px worth of space. It's for this reason that you can make a 1-pixel-by-1-pixel red dot as a spacer image and use 40 of them at different shapes and sizes all over a page while still only needing to download 1px of image data to the cache. Loading a 500px image takes considerably more resources than a 50px one. It doesn't matter if a solid red block is stretched to 4000% it's original size because image fidelity is not required or useful in these situations. I would think that if this is a feature of a modern browser, it would at least be user-customizable. In my testing, which isn't as extensive as yours obviously, but is on Windows: *Webkit: Chrome displays the blurring and is my primary browser. I also confirmed it appears on the iPhone's Mobile Safari (though as you can imagine this matters just about nothing at these tiny resolutions) *Gecko: Firefox 3.5.3 (at work) displays the blurring as does 3.0.14 at home (I primarily use Chrome so I am a few updates behind from Mozilla). Daharkhmeiji's shot of Firefox confirms that this is the functionality on his browser as well, so perhaps before saying that it's "strange I you see them different from you," you might consider that your browsing experience is the exception in this instance. I don't even have IE8 installed to try. In any case, your use of the page renderer application to prove your point actually only proves that what you wanted to implement is completely dependent on the end user's browser and its image rendering process. This would be a bad idea even if it was the old version of the browser showing it the "bad" way because our aim (especially on a wiki) should be to preserve compatibility, but especially since it's the most recent version of IE (as much as I hate it) as well as other modern browsers that show the stretched image, we should probably cater to their requirements rather than those few that render differently. I left some general wiki responses to your claim about policy on the Screenshot tips discussion page, as I wouldn't mind anyone reading those. But I have to admit that your digs at me as a webdesigner- including using paint for something as simple as a sub-400px screencap resize, and especially your implication that the only reason I was seeing this functionality was that I was using IE- struck a bit of a nerve with me. I understand where you were coming from with your convention, but I think there are far more reasons to stick with a grab-resize-insert method over requiring users to make an image with a transparent background and do an on-the-fly calculation and resize to get the infobox image we want. Finally, thank you for telling me about imagemagick. I like it and am using it now as my default image editor- I didn't like waiting for GIMP's UI to load when I click edit anyway, as much of an improvement as it was from waiting for Photoshop's sluggish ass to kick into gear. --Hawkian 00:14, September 24, 2009 (UTC) :@imagemagick: no problem :and i’m sorry if i offended you. :– Flying-sheep 02:37, September 24, 2009 (UTC) :PS: the problem is being worked on, look here: :img {image-rendering: -moz-crisp-edges; -ms-interpolation-mode: nearest-neighbor;} :this will care of the rendendering at least in firefox 3.6 and IE…